Voice
Voice
The word voice () is used in the NT of any tone or inarticulate sound, whether of animate beings or inanimate things, e.g. Luk 1:44, the voice of thy salutation, or the sound of thunder, wind, water, and musical instruments. More frequently it implies the articulated utterance of a speaker, whether the speech be jargon or intelligible. The exact signification of -a very common word in early Christian literature-whether literal or metaphorical, articulate or inarticulate, is to be determined by the context.
In 1Co 14:1-19 St. Paul treats of the subject of tongues (q.v. [Note: .v. quod vide, which see.] ) and declares that mere articulation without intelligibility is of no moment. Even the sound of inanimate instruments such as the flute or the harp is useless, if there are no intervals in the music; for no air can be made out by the listener if the laws of harmony are ignored. Prophecy is superior to glossolalia because it conveys a spiritual message in language that can be understood. The Apostle adds, There are ever so many kinds of language ( ) in the world, every one of them meaning something (v. 10) (Moffatt, The NT: A New Translation, London, 1913). In his use of the word St. Paul includes both the speech of the human voice in its many languages and the notes of musical instruments.
In the Apocalypse is found very frequently. The formula I heard a voice or a great voice or the voice that I heard (Rev 1:10; Rev 4:1; Rev 5:11; Rev 6:6-7; Rev 9:13; Rev 10:4; Rev 10:8; Rev 12:10; Rev 14:2; Rev 14:13; Rev 16:1; Rev 18:4; Rev 19:1; Rev 21:3) applies to the voice of God, or of the Lamb, or of the angel of Christ, or of one of the angels of the Presence or of the whole concourse of angels. The voice nearly always implies a personality, even when it is compared to a trumpet speaking (Rev 4:1); but it is applied to the utterance of the beasts (Rev 6:5) as well as their riders (Rev 6:8). It is to be noted that in the Apocalypse the voices of the unseen world frequently, though not invariably, convey a distinctive and intelligible message or aspiration or doxology.
In the NT , the voice of God, which is equivalent to the command of God, is an expression found in Heb 3:7; Heb 3:15; Heb 4:7, all passages being quotations from the Septuagint (Psalms 94[95]:7); cf. Barn. viii. 7. The phrase the voice of the Lord used in Psalms 29 metaphorically of thunder is quoted in Act 7:31 by Stephen of Gods self-revelation to Moses.
For Bath ol see article Voice in Dict. of Christ and the Gospels , article Bat ol in Jewish Encyclopedia , article Bath Kol in PRE [Note: RE Realencyklopdie fr protestantische Theologie und Kirche.] 3 ii. 443 f., and G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus, Eng. translation , Edinburgh, 1902, p. 204 f.
The voice of God-the command or call of God-to the soul is not in either OT or NT an audible message, but rather an inward impression wrought within the consciousness of the recipient by the operation of the Divine Spirit. The objectivity or otherwise of the accompanying phenomena, whether of vision or of sound, is to be determined by the evidence of the context. Take the classical example of the narratives of St. Pauls conversion in Act 9:1-22; Act 22:3-16; Act 26:9-18. Here we have an intense realization of the presence of the Risen Christ, of the actual words He addressed to the Apostle, and of a succeeding colloquy. To the Apostles consciousness the call of Christ took the form of an audible appeal and conversation, just as later on Augustine was to hear the Tolle, lege, or authoritative command of God which resulted in his spiritual illumination. The phenomena of sound and speech were valid for the awakened soul in both cases, though the exact message was heard by each alone; cf. the statement that St. Pauls companions stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no man (Act 9:7), i.e. they heard a sound, but no articulate utterance. It is easy to understand how the language of the senses-especially seeing and hearing-came to be metaphorically employed in all religious literatures to express the spiritual apprehension of the Divine and the Infinite. Sometimes the symbol and the perception which it represents become fused in that [the surface] consciousness: and the mystics experience then presents itself to him as visions or voices, which we must look upon as the garment he has himself provided to veil that Reality upon which no man may look and live (E. Underhill, Mysticism2, p. 93).
Literature.-The student must consult dictionaries like Dict. of Christ and the Gospels , Thayer Grimms Gr.-Eng. Lexicon of the NT, and E. Preuschens Vollstndiges griechdeut. Handwrterbuch zu den Schriften des NT, Giessen, 1908-10, for the passages where voice occurs; but for the larger question of the relation of sensual perception to supersensual realities see E. Underhill, Mysticism2, London, 1911, passages quoted under Auditions in the Index, p. 587.
R. Martin Pope.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
Voice
SEE BATIH-KOL; SEE VOTE.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Voice
VOICE
1. Introductory.The Gr. word of which voice is a rendering in the NT is . In the Authorized Version other renderings are sometimes given: as sound (Joh 3:8) and noise (Rev 6:1) [but cf. Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 where this inconsistency is generally removed* [Note: Cf., however, Mat 24:31 (sound both in AV and RV).] ]. The Gr. word is sometimes used of inarticulate utterance (= sound), e.g. of trumpet, Mat 24:31, 1Co 14:7 (things without life, giving a voice, whether pipe or harp, etc., Authorized Version sound here), Rev 14:2 (voice of many waters, Authorized Version and Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ), Joh 3:8 of the wind (thou hearest the voice thereof, Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ), etc.; sometimes of articulate utterance, ascribed to God (Mat 3:17 etc.), and, naturally, to men (Mat 3:3 e.g.).
is often used in such combinations as () = to lift up the voice (e.g. Luk 17:13; Luk 11:27), with the general meaning to cry out, call; , with a great (loud) voice, is often added to verbs; see the Lexx. and cf. art. Cry.
The voice of God and the voice of Christ are referred to in various connexions (some eschatological). Jesus compares the call which He makes to that of the shepherd to his sheep (Joh 10:3-5 the sheep hear his voice; cf. Joh 10:16; Joh 10:27, Joh 18:37); in an eschatological connexion, Rev 3:20 (Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to him and sup with him, and he with me); of the resurrection cry, 1Th 4:16 (the voice of the archangel awakening the dead; cf. Joh 5:25; Joh 5:28, the voice of Christ awakening the spiritually dead). The voice of God is spoken of as admonishing in the OT Scriptures (Joh 5:37, Heb 3:7; Heb 3:15; Heb 4:7), and as shaking the earth (Heb 12:26).
An antithesis is drawn by Gr. writers (esp. Plutarch) between and , and this was afterwards transferred by the Fathers (Origen, Augustine) to John the Baptist and Christ, the first claiming for himself no more than to be the voice of one crying in the wilderness (Joh 1:23), the other emphatically declared to be the Word which was with God and was God (Joh 1:1). See, further, Trench, NT Synonyms, lxxxix., where Augustines interesting disquisition on this contrast is summarized.
2. The Voice from Heaven.
(a) In the NT.A voice from heaven is mentioned in the Synoptics in Mat 3:17 || ( ), in the narrative of the Baptism (And lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased), and again in Mat 17:5 || in the narrative of the Transfiguration a voice out of the cloud is spoken of (And behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying, etc.). In both cases, as Dalman (Words of Jesus, p. 204) has pointed out, the mention of the heavens and the cloud is derived from the context, and both representations are due to the Evangelic narrative and not to the words of Jesus. In the Fourth Gospel one reference occurs, viz. in Joh 12:28 There came therefore a voice out of heaven, saying, etc.; and it is mentioned several times in the Apocalypse (Rev 10:4; Rev 10:8; Rev 14:2; Rev 18:4 etc.)in all these passages introducing a heavenly revelation.
(b) In Rabbinical literature.The Heavenly Voice is frequently met with in Rabbinical literature under the designation Bath Kol (daughter-voice). Here also it often introduces a Divine revelation. The Bath Kol was one of the means used by God for imparting a revelation. It was heard all through Biblical times, and, in fact, oftenest during the classical period of Israels history before prophecy was extinguished, and while the Holy Spirit was abiding in its fulness among the people (symbolized by the Temple). Thus at the death of Moses a Bath Kol was heard saying: Fear thou not, Moses! I myself will care for thy burial (Deut. R. on xxxiv.). But it also survived beyond the Biblical period, and was regarded as the only means of Divine revelation then operative (Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] Sota, 48b; Yoma, 9b). In time, however, it fell into disrepute, owing, perhaps, to the assiduous way in which it came to be looked for and appealed to by certain teachers as a means of further revelations; and by the Rabbis of the 2nd cent. it was decided that no attention is to be paid to it when arrogating to decide against the moral conviction of the majority. The Torah is not in heaven. Its interpretation is left to the conscience of catholic Israel.* [Note: Schechter, Rabbinic Parallels to the NT, JQR xii. 426 (April 1900).]
A distinction must be drawn between the true Bath Kolthe Heavenly Voice which proceeded really and miraculously from God Himself directlyand the secondary Bath Kol, which was merely a human utterance heard by some chance, to which was attributed the significance of a Divine intimation (Dalman). In the former of these senses the expression is used to denote audible speech, appealing to the faculty of hearing, uttered by God Himself. Only, the Rabbis shrank from saying baldly, God said so and so, and made use of the phrase A Bath Kol came (or was given) instead. The phrase, like many others, is merely precautionary, nor has it any hypostatic significance.
One striking feature about the revelations conveyed by the Bath Kol is that these were usually expressed not in original words, but in some verse or sentence taken from the Hebrew OT or (in some cases) from the Apocryphal books. Thus it is said that when the Rabbinical authorities proposed to include King Solomon among the finally lost, a Bath Kol was heard saying in the words of Job 34:33 Shall his recompense be as thou wilt, that thou refusest it? [Note: Cited by Schechter (op. cit. ib.). There are many other instances.]
(c) Significance of the Heavenly Voice in the NT.Parallel with the true Bath Kol, which was regarded as one of the organs of Divine revelation, is the Heavenly Voice, heard at the Baptism of Jesus (Mat 3:17, Mar 1:11, Luk 3:22), at the Transfiguration (Mat 17:5, Mar 9:7, Luk 9:35), before the Passion (Joh 12:28), as well as that heard by St. Peter and again by St. Paul (Act 9:4, cf. Act 22:7 and Act 26:14; Act 10:13; Act 10:15). It is to be noticed that the Voice at the Baptism and the Transfiguration combines two sentences of Scripture (Psa 2:7 and Isa 41:1) quite in the manner of the Bath Kol spoken of in Rabbinical literature. An audible voice solemnly affirming or introducing a Divine revelation seems to be intended in every case.
The NT formula (Joh 12:28, cf. Rev 10:4; Rev 10:8; Rev 18:4 etc.) is the equivalent of the Rabbinical Hebrew and the Aram. Aramaic . In later Rabbinical literature the expression was abbreviated (from heaven being omitted), but its significance remained unaltered. For parallels in the extra-canonical literature of the OT, cf. Jub 17:15, Bk. of Enoch lxv. 4, 2 (4) Est 6:13 f. Gods. Voice, i.e. the Heavenly Voice, is, of course, the correlative of Gods Word or Speech (the Memra of J [Note: Jehovah.] . , ). Cf. Bousset, Rel. d. Jud 1:2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] p. 362 f.
The attempt of Edersheim (LT [Note: T Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah [Edersheim].] i. p. 285 f.) to discredit any real analogy between the Bath Kol and the Voice from Heaven mentioned in the Gospels is unwarranted. His contention that the Bath Kol could not be represented as accompanying the descent of the Holy Spirit is shown by the facts adduced above to be baseless. On the contrary, it would only be natural to represent the revival of prophecy and the return in full power of the Holy Spirit as including also the mode of revelation expressed by the Daughter-Voice. Only so would the scale of revelation be complete.
Literature.The Lexx. s.v. , esp. Grimm-Thayer and Schleusner. To the important literature on Bath Kol already cited in the body of the article, add art. Bath Kol in JE [Note: E Jewish Encyclopedia.] (with the literature cited at end) and in PRE [Note: RE Real-Encyklopdie fur protest. Theologic und Kirche.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] ii. 443 f. (by Dalman); Weber, Jd. Theol.2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] (reff. in Index). The passages relating to have been collected by Pinner in his ed. of Berakhoth (Berlin, 1842), pp. 2224; an elaborate presentment of the data with full discussion is given by E. A. Abbott in From Letter to Spirit (1903), pp. 139460; add also Lightfoot, Hor., Heb. on Mat 3:17.
G. H. Box.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Voice
vois. See BATH KOL.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Voice
Of God
Eze 1:24; Eze 1:28; Eze 10:5; Joh 5:37; Joh 12:28-30; Act 7:31; Act 9:4; Act 9:7; Act 26:14-15 Anthropomorphisms
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
VOICE
Voice of a person, according to the Indian Interpreter, eh. 1: denotes his fame and reputation among the people.
And again in the same chapter, ” If any one dreams that he sings, and has a good voice, it signifies that he shall have joy and praise amongst the people; and that if a king has such a dream, it denotes his proclaiming of a new law which shall be grateful to the people, and cause him to be beloved of them. Farther, the Persian and Egyptian, in ch. 51., say, “if any one dreams that his voice is enlarged and grown great, it portends honour and dignity to his children, and terror to his enemies.”
A voice to a person from behind, when the word behind is not used to denote symbolically a thing future, signifies that the person it is directed to, or the party whom he represents, is gone out of the way, and so must be recalled to turn back, which implies a repentance. Thus in Isa 30:21, ” And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left.” Agreeably to this, a voice of a person from behind, in order to direct him to behold a vision behind him, will denote that the vision relates to something past or existent, and to be observed as well backwards towards the time past, as forwards towards that which is to come.
Fuente: A Symbolical Dictionary
Voice
phone (G5456) Voice, Sound, Noise
logos (G3056) Word, Saying, Speech, Utterance
The Greek grammarians and natural philosophers wrote a great deal about phone and logos and their relation to one another.
In the Authorized Version, phone is translated as “voice” (Mat 2:18), “sound” (Joh 3:8), and “noise” (Rev 6:1). Phone is distinguished from psophos by being the cry of a living creature and sometimes is ascribed to God (Mat 3:17), people (Mat 3:3), and animals (Mat 26:34). Phone is improperly ascribed to inanimate objects (1Co 14:7), such as the trumpet (Mat 24:31), the wind (Joh 3:8), and the thunder (Rev 6:1; cf. Psa 77:18). But logos, a “word” or “saying” or “rational utterance” of the mind, whether spoken or unspoken, is the correlative of reason and can only be predicated of human beings, angels, and God. The phone may be merely an inarticulate cry of a person or animal. Thus the following definition of the Stoics is incorrect: “Phone of an animal is air struck by irrational impulse, of a person it is articulate air proceeding from thought.” The Stoics transferred to the phone what can only be consistently affirmed of the logos. Whenever phone and logos are contrasted, the particular point made is that phone is “inarticulated wind.” But even in the Stoics’ definition of logos as “a meaningful sound [phone] proceeding from thought” and of legein (G3004) as “to express a meaningful sound [phone] about something comprehended,” this is not the case. Compare the Stoics’ definition with Plutarch’s: “Phone is something irrational and without meaning, logos is speech [lexis] in a voice [phone] indicative of thought.”By this unuttered “word,” Plutarch affirmed that the demon of Socrates intimated his presence:
What occurs is not an utterance, but one might liken it to a word [logon] of a demon, without a sound [phones] laying hold of him who is shown what is intended. For sound [phone] is similar to an impact on the soul, receiving the word [logon] through the ears with force whenever they coincide. The mind of the superior one leads the well-disposed soul, needing no impact, by touching the one who has been influenced.
The whole chapter has the deepest theological interest since the great theologians of the early church, especially Origen in the Greek and Augustine in the Latin, loved to transfer this antithesis of phone and logos to John the Baptist and his Lord. John claimed only to be “the voice of one crying in the wilderness” (Joh 1:23), but Christ was emphatically declared to be the Word that was with God and was God (Joh 1:1). Augustine subtly traced the profound suitability of the “voice” and the “Word” to express the relationship between John and Jesus. Augustine observed that a word is something even without a voice, for a word in the heart is as truly a word as after it is uttered. A voice, however, is nothing; it is an unmeaningful sound, an empty cry, unless it also is the vehicle of a word. When they are united, there is a sense in which the voice precedes the word, for the sound strikes the ear before the sense is conveyed to the mind. Although the voice precedes the word, the voice is not really before the word; the contrary is true. When we speak, the word in our hearts must precede the voice on our lips. The voice is the vehicle by which the word in us is transferred to and becomes a word in another. In the act of accomplishing this, the voice passes away, but the word planted in the other person’s heart and in the heart of the speaker remains. Augustine applied this argument to Jesus and John. John is nothing without Jesus, but apart from John, Jesus remains the same, though the knowledge that others have of Jesus may have come through John. Although John was the first in time, Jesus who came after him most truly was before him. John passed away as soon as he had accomplished his mission and did not have a continuing significance for the church. But Jesus, about whom John had witnessed, abides forever.
John was a voice for a time, Christ is the eternal Word from the beginning. Remove the word, and what is a voice? Where there is no understanding, it is an empty noise. A voice without a word strikes the ear, it does not edify the heart. However in our own heart we alter the order of events by edifying. If I think of what I shall say, already the word is in my heart; but wishing to speak to you, I seek how there may be also in your heart what already is in mine. Seeking how this may reach you and how there may reside in your heart what already is in my heart, I assume a voice and with this voice I speak to you. The sound of the voice brings to you understanding of the word, and when the sound of the voice brings to you understanding of the word, the sound itself penetrates and the word which the sound brings to you now is in your heart and does not withdraw from mine.
Fuente: Synonyms of the New Testament
Voice
“a sound,” is used of the voice (a) of God, Mat 3:17; Joh 5:37; Joh 12:28, Joh 12:30; Act 7:31; Act 10:13, Act 10:15; Act 11:7, Act 11:9; Heb 3:7, Heb 3:15; Heb 4:7; Heb 12:19, Heb 12:26; 2Pe 1:17-18; Rev 18:4; Rev 21:3; (b) of Christ, (1) in the days of His flesh, Mat 12:19 (negatively); Joh 3:29; Joh 5:25; Joh 10:3-4, Joh 10:16, Joh 10:27; Joh 11:43; Joh 18:37; (2) on the Cross, Mat 27:46, and parallel passages; (3) from heaven, Act 9:4, Act 9:7; Act 22:7, Act 22:9, Act 22:14; Act 26:14; Rev 1:10, Rev 1:12 (here, by metonymy, of the speaker), Rev 1:15; Rev 3:20; (4) at the resurrection “to life,” Joh 5:28; 1Th 4:16, where “the voice of the archangel” is, lit., “a voice of an archangel,” and probably refers to the Lord’s voice as being of an archangelic character; (5) at the resurrection to judgment, Joh 5:28 [not the same event as (4)]; (c) of human beings on earth, e.g., Mat 2:18; Mat 3:3; Luk 1:42, in some texts, AV, “voice,” and frequently in the Synoptists; (d) of angels, Rev 5:11, and frequently in the Apocalypse; (e) of the redeemed in heaven, e.g., Rev 6:10; Rev 18:22; Rev 19:1, Rev 19:5; (f) of a pagan god, Act 12:22; (g) of things, e.g., wind, Joh 3:8, RV, “voice” (AV, “sound”). See SOUND.
Notes: (1) In Luk 1:42 (1st part), AV, anaphoneo, “to lift up one’s voice,” is rendered “spake out,” RV, “lifted up (her) voice.” (2) In Act 26:10, AV, “I gave my voice” (RV, “… vote”): see STONE, No. 2.
Fuente: Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words
Voice
This word is used to describe many sounds and noises. It is not always a human voice that is intended.
Exo 4:8 (a) GOD intended that this sign should carry a message to the hearts of all who observed it. It failed to do so. Pharaoh would not believe.
2Sa 22:14 (a) It is quite probable that the thunder was GOD’s word of warning concerning His power and His might. (See also Job 40:9; Psa 46:6; Psa 77:18; Psa 104:7).
Psa 93:3 (a) The power of water, the irresistible waves, and the force of the flood are called the voice of GOD, because they are supposed to bring a warning message to the people of the power of GOD. (See also Jer 10:13; Jer 51:16; Eze 43:2; Rev 1:15; Rev 19:6).